The short term memory loss is hilarious in these threads, there has been plenty of weeks where Bryan/Punk or others gained viewers but as soon as any segment loses some (according to Neilsen) they are ratings killers. Pretty simple holiday weekend low ratings, I take quarter hour with grain of salt since the rating system is horribly inaccurate.

Agreed. I'll just post what I said in another thread to sum up my feelings on ratings.

Quote:

EXACTLY. I hate ratings arguments because 'ratings', in themselves, are inaccurate measures of drawing ability. They are subjectively based on numerous different factors such as storyline detail, character development, time placement, hype, and viewers just having the time to sit down and watch. Yet on here many people herald them as the true deciding factors on who's a star and who's not.

To be honest, I believe the only way to accurately measure how OVER someone is, is to look at merchandise sales and audience reception. The reason being that both of those things are the only factors that can be 100% traced to the individual performers.

Guys like Punk, Bryan, and even Orton sells loads of merchandise and have loud crowd activity (positive or negative) every time they're on the screen, even in casual cities, so that should prove that many people care about them, and it's certainly not just "INTERNETT FANZ" like all the haters proclaim.

Give it a watch; call it a preview of what's to come in Avengers III, if you will , only not as simplified to appease the toon's target demo.

Thanos is only beaten because he allows himself to be, and he only allows himself to be beaten because, in spite of his ambition to attain ultimate power, he sub-consciously knows that he's not worthy of it.﻿
~ Adam Warlock

It's been stated in the ratings thread before I think but put simply, the neilsen ratings sample is statistically significant. In other words, you would gain very little accuracy, if any, from increasing the sample size.

It's been stated in the ratings thread before I think but put simply, the neilsen ratings sample is statistically significant. In other words, you would gain very little accuracy, if any, from increasing the sample size.

thats what i thought too, as long as it has a decent amount of people and includes all types of people it should be fine.

Only in the next WON, Wednesday. But we know that Punk/Bryan bombed in catastrophic levels as usual and did one of the lowest top of the hour quarters in RAW history. Del Rio/Santino did terrible second quarter and Big Show's great segments saved the program and did the only decent numbers.

And 95/96 kinda proves this point with Rocky Maiva and the Ring Master... they had the two biggest stars still, but if they had stayed like that... well, there'd be no WWE today.

When Maivia and the Ring Master finally became legit main eventers, they actually move viewership figures in ASTRONOMICAL numbers, which Punk and Bryan did in REVERSE when they got their crowning moment of glories.

Even during the Summer of Punk, numbers were dipping above and under 3.0, and most of his marks consider that period as his most fruitful output in his WWE career. If he can't draw in new audiences (and actually even losing some of them) when he's at his best, then what does that say about Punk?

When Maivia and the Ring Master finally became legit main eventers, they actually move viewership figures in ASTRONOMICAL numbers, which Punk and Bryan did in REVERSE when they got their crowning moment of glories.

Even during the Summer of Punk, numbers were dipping above and under 3.0, and most of his marks consider that period as his most fruitful output in his WWE career. If he can't draw in new audiences (and actually even losing some of them) when he's at his best, then what does that say about Punk?

You do know that in 96 during Austins rise ratings were terrible right and the Mania he headlined with Bret Hart bombed hard as well. It took a LONG time for enough people to tune and like what they saw in Austin for the ratings to actually shift. It didn't happen overnight like your claiming. Also, The Rock became a star during the peak of Austin 316, and characters similar to him, so he already had the luxury of having a lot of eyes being fixated on him, and wrestling being cool.

Give it a watch; call it a preview of what's to come in Avengers III, if you will , only not as simplified to appease the toon's target demo.

Thanos is only beaten because he allows himself to be, and he only allows himself to be beaten because, in spite of his ambition to attain ultimate power, he sub-consciously knows that he's not worthy of it.﻿
~ Adam Warlock

You do know that in 96 during Austins rise ratings were terrible right and the Mania he headlined with Bret Hart bombed hard as well. It took a LONG time for enough people to tune and like what they in Austin for the ratings to actually shift. It didn't happen overnight like your claiming. Also, The Rock became a star during the peak of Austin 316, and characters similar to him, so he already had the luxury of having a lot of eyes being fixated on him, and wrestling being cool.

This is probably one of the bigger misconceptions (among many) when it comes to ratings on these boards. That putting the belt on the right guy equals immediate and instant "ratingz" That's not the way it works. That's not the way it has ever worked.

And for the record, it doesn't work for other long running TV shows with up and down periods either. Take SNL for example. You'd think that all they have to do to come out of one of their down periods is to put the right person in a segment or two on one show then BOOM, ratings skyrocket instantly, no hype needed, people will somehow telepathically know to tune in right then and there.

But that's not the way it works. You have to build buzz. For SNL, you have to teach people that the show if funny again. They have to hear about it through word of mouth, the internet, or where ever. For WWE, they have to teach the audience that certain up and comers, whether they be Daniel Byran, Punk, Sheamus, or whoever, are bid deals. Only when you truly treat a guy like he MATTERS will fans start to believe in his starpower. It doesn't happen instantly. It's a process. That so many people buy into the Vince Russo idea of smash-booking is somewhat disheartening.

EDIT: And jesus christ guys, are we really sitting here talking about Big Show being a draw with a straight face? This is the worst thread.

WWE's problem is when they put someone in the main event and the number isn't beautiful, they scrap it immediately. If they instantly assume that they're going to get consistent numbers doing that then they're in for a big disappointment.